Nature Sucks

Saturday, March 7, 2015

The sexual has several parameters at its disposal, in the sense that selection could mold its sexual cycle in any of several different directions (increased fusion, decreased splitting, etc.). We have seen that if damage is low there is a tradeoff between sexuality and asexuality, but that haploids generally beat the diploid due to their superior replication rates. If a sexual uses more fusion than necessary, it relinquishes its superiority to an outcome of competitive coexistence with the diploid (if the haploid is absent). In competition with the haploid, selection might eliminate a "fusion-happy, sexual, perhaps by back-mutation to a haploid in that case.

The asexual haploid cannot cope with high damage. So, when damage is high, only the sexual can compete with a diploid. The sexual cycle must maintain a minimum level of activity before the sexual can even begin to compete with the diploid. If this condition is met, then initial conditions give the outcome to one or the other of the two species or to competitive coexistence. The actual outcome is a function of initial conditions. Our computer experiments have failed to produce interesting dynamical behavior (periodic limit cycles or chaos), and we believe it unlikely that such behavior is possible in this system (for biologically reasonable parameter values) in spite of the large number of free parameters and dimensions. - in Origin of sex for error repair. I. Sex, diploidy, and haploidy.

Friday, February 27, 2015

Despite of the gene view as the unit of selection, explanations for sexual preferences and evolution of secondary sexual traits are invariable done at the level of the Organisms' Sexual Preference, more specific, the female preference. The best example comes from the Fisher Runaway model, where a exacerbated choice of females for an ostensive trait it will promote the evolution of that trait, even when it causes prejudice in terms of ability to escape from predators, a physical disadvantage promoted by Sexual Selection.

The explanation for this handicap is that it guarantees that males with bad genes aren't able to cope with the ornament and so, to survive, the ornament is neglected signing him as a bad mate. Here there is immediately a contradiction, calling this a non-adaptive trait despite representing a selective advantage! Clearly there is a confusion of not know for sure if it is Sexual or Natural Selection who promotes those traits. However, these confusion is more or less solved in the case of Sex Ratios, where approaches like Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS) give a more Natural Selection perspective, making evident that Sexuality here makes part of the Environment that supports Natural Selection. This is even more evident when Hamilton argues that the Stable Sexual Ratio isn't necessary 1:1 as supported by Fisher. These Extraordinary Sex Ratios show that is Natural Selection and not Sexual Selection that shapes Sexual Reproduction, because the external Environment action is the main cause. With these new models more supported in math than female preferences, it's clearly the Survival of the Fittest that counts in this general Environment with or without Sexual reproduction as part of it.

Despite all this signs that point out to Species Selection, that show Natural Selection as the only force in Evolution, things like Red Queen Hypothesis continue to be supported and Sexual Selection is still seen as one source of Evolution like Natural Selection is. All this theories are captured in a very basic materialistic view, the Red Queen Hypothesizes where sex evolved because new and unfamiliar combinations of genes could be presented to parasites, preventing the parasite from preying on that organism, is a very lame justification. How can some one believe that thousand of million of yeas, that made Sexual Selection ubiquitous in all Eukaryote Species turns out to exist just to save those species from parasites? How can some one conclude that because crossing over allows endless different gene combinations it means that the purpose of Sexual Selection is diversity?

Is there a way to scape from this childish and basic way of thinking? Is there a way of center evolution where it really happens? Is there a way to understand Sexual Selection as something that restricts and controls Evolution? Is there a way to prove that Evolution is only caused by Natural Selection?

Using population genetic modeling techniques, we find that if allopatric populations come into contact via the onset of gene flow, sexual selection, in its purest form, takes on an inhibitory role, drastically reducing trait differentiation due to divergent local adaptation. This is due to the fact that under this Fisherian model, preferences, which are not under direct selection, equilibrate with little population differentiation, even though trait frequencies may differ greatly due to local adaptation. This creates relatively greater mating opportunities for foreign, rare males in each population, directly countering the effects of local adaptation and reducing population differentiation at a trait locus. Importantly, stronger preferences exaggerate this effect. Fisherian sexual selection is thus a double-edged sword in the development of isolation under these conditions, potentially driving differentiation in allopatry but removing it if there is contact. Ultimately its role in allopatric speciation is tenuous, failing even if contact is initiated after substantive trait and preference divergence has occurred.

Yes, macroevolution is counterintuitive, yes Species Selection is counterintuitive, yes depart from Materialism is counterintuitive, but nevertheless is the path to truth! However the idea is quite simple, crossing over in Sexual Selection is itself a departure from materialistic restrictions. Instead of Natural Selection being made on Organisms, like in prokaryotes where the genome isn't fragmented by any crossing over, with Sexual Reproduction it's made on Species, but because Species are something abstract, something Logic and not Physical, intuitively Natural Selection is seen as acting on genes, just because genes are at the Physical level! Genes are no more than the needed infrastructure to Species, they are encapsulated and maintained accordingly to the species survival to which they belong. The same way selection at the level of Organisms is limited to explain evolution in Eukaryotes, Genes are the panacea that nowadays is used to explain a more complex reality than the one materialism is able to.

John Maynard Smith, one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, recently summarized in the NYRB the sharply conflicting assessments of Stephen Jay Gould: "Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-biologists as the pre-eminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists." (NYRB, November 30, 1995, p. 46). No one can take any pleasure in the evident pain Gould is experiencing now that his actual standing within the community of professional evolutionary biologists is finally becoming more widely known. If what was a stake was solely one man's self-regard, common decency would preclude comment. But as Maynard Smith points out, more is at stake. Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory"—or as Ernst Mayr says of Gould and his small group of allies—they "quite conspicuously misrepresent the views of [biology's] leading spokesmen."{1}. Indeed, although Gould characterizes his critics as "anonymous" and "a tiny coterie", nearly every major evolutionary biologist of our era has weighed in a vain attempt to correct the tangle of confusions that the higher profile Gould has inundated the intellectual world with.{2} The point is not that Gould is the object of some criticism—so properly are we all—it is that his reputation as a credible and balanced authority about evolutionary biology is non-existent among those who are in a professional position to know. - http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html

However, against all this genetic fundamentalism as unit of selection, it looks like there are a lot to explore, and Species Selection turns out not to be a nonsense like the mainstream tries to make it.

Species selection in the broad sense—also
termed species sorting—shapes evolutionary patterns through differences
in speciation and extinction rates (and their net outcome, often termed
the emergent fitness of clades) that arise by interaction of intrinsic
biological traits with the environment. Effect-macroevolution occurs
when those biotic traits, such as body size or fecundity, reside at the
organismic level. Strict-sense species selection occurs when those
traits are emergent at the species level, such as geographic range or
population size. The fields of paleontology, comparative phylogenetic
analysis, macroecology, and conservation biology are rich in examples of
species sorting, but relatively few instances have been well
documented, so the extent and efficacy of the specific processes remain
poorly known. A general formalization of these processes remains
challenging, but approaches drawing on hierarchical covariance models
appear promising. Analyses integrating paleontological and neontological
data for a single set of clades would be especially powerful. - Species Selection: Theory and Data

Terms like Organism and Species Level are clear clues to a multi layered scheme in opposition to a flat one. So, step by step, some are peeking bellow the surface, and selection by layers isn't a taboo anymore:

Does natural selection act primarily on individual organisms, on groups,
on genes, or on whole species? This book provides a comprehensive
analysis of the long-standing controversy in evolutionary biology over
the levels of selection, focusing on conceptual, philosophical, and
foundational questions. In the first half of the book, a systematic
framework is developed for thinking about natural selection acting at
multiple levels of the biological hierarchy; the framework is then used
to help resolve outstanding issues. Considerable attention is paid to
the concept of causality as it relates to the levels of selection,
particularly the idea that natural selection at one hierarchical level
can have effects that ‘filter’ up or down to other levels. Full account
is taken of the recent biological literature on ‘major evolutionary
transitions’ and the recent resurgence of interest in multi-level
selection theory among biologists. Other biological topics discussed
include Price's equation, kin and group selection, the gene's eye view,
evolutionary game theory, selfish genetic elements, species and clade
selection, and the evolution of individuality. Philosophical topics
discussed include reductionism and holism, causation and correlation,
the nature of hierarchical organization, and realism and pluralism about
the levels of selection. - Evolution and the Levels of Selection - Samir Okasha

Step by step Species will be king in terms of Natural and Sexual Selection, while genes have been just a momentary fascination for the detail, like atoms in TVs, Cars and Refrigerants with mainstream biologists as physicists explaining the evolution of Coca Cola at the Atomic level, ignoring that Coca Cola, like Species, is selected as a whole, by the Environment of consumers.

Like Evolution centered at the Organism Level lost its veracity for Eukaryotes, so it will be at the Genes Level, because an house is not a brick, just happens to be made of it.

Most analyses of species selection require emergent, as opposed to
aggregate, characters at the species level. This "emergent character"
approach tends to focus on the search for adaptations at the species
level. Such an approach seems to banish the most potent evolutionary
property of populations--variability itself--from arguments about
species selection (for variation is an aggregate character). We wish,
instead, to extend the legitimate domain of species selection to
aggregate characters. This extension of selection theory to the species
level will concentrate, instead, on the relation between fitness and the
species character, whether aggregate or emergent. Examination of the
role of genetic variability in the long-term evolution of clades
illustrates the cogency of broadening the definition of species
selection to include aggregate characters. We reinterpret, in this
light, a classic case presented in support of species selection. As
originally presented, the species selection explanation of volutid
neogastropod evolution was vulnerable to a counterinterpretation at the
organism level. Once this case is recast within a definition of species
selection that reflects the essential structure and broad applicability
of hierarchical selection models, the organism-level reinterpretation of
variability loses its force. We conclude that species selection on
variability is a major force of macroevolution. - Species selection on variability

Thursday, January 1, 2015

The bad news about the human species is that our impulse to prejudge others predates our evolution from primates to humans, but the good news is that more recent evolution of the neocortex restrains our less noble impulses. Combining research from neuroscience and psychology, this collection of essays examines the question of whether we are born with biases based on race, gender, age, religion, and sexual orientation and whether we can learn to control ourselves and come to appreciate our differences. Contributors provide historical perspective on how science has served racism, including eugenics, and looks beyond the individual impulses to the institutional support for discrimination. The collection begins with scientists drawing on brain scans to examine the instinct toward bias and how we can mitigate those instincts and goes on to psychologists exploring the psychological roots of prejudice and highlighting tools to overcome bias without succumbing to the myth of color blindness. In the final section, social scientists ponder how we can learn through changes in cultural beliefs and social circumstances to appreciate diversity. A highly accessible, thought-provoking collection on racial bias. --Vanessa Bush on Are We Born Racist?: New Insights from Neuroscience and Positive Psychology

In the traditional biological reductionism, there are the Genes and Natural Selection that explains everything, this way math is much more imaginative than biology. This flatness makes some people to continue to search causes in the wrong place, theories that point out to some kind of "Male Warrior" in the past, that explains genes in own genome that started some kind of self defense mechanism to protect us from different races. This is an example of the "Selfish Gene" way of thinking, with the gene as the explanation for everything as the result of a flatness philosophy...

Now the truth (thanks to our Trinitarian way of thinking regarding Eukaryotes)!

The dark skin of tropical peoples is likely to be an adaptation to the strong ultraviolet (UV) radiation near the equator, perhaps protecting against sunburn or degradation of folate. By contrast, the adaptive value of light skin is questionable. In particular, the relevance of vitamin D deficiency rickets as a selective factor has been cogently criticized. Population genetic studies on the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) gene (one of the genes responsible for normal human skin colour variation) also cast doubt on the role of positive natural selection in the evolution of light skin. Natural selection may favour dark skin everywhere, though to a lesser extent at higher latitudes. Darwin believed that racial differences in skin colour were caused by sexual selection. Available evidence suggests that in each society a lighter-than-average skin colour is preferred in a sexual partner. Such a preference would generate sexual selection for light skin that counteracts natural selection for dark skin. The observed latitudinal gradient in skin colour may result from the balance between natural and sexual selection. - Sexual selection as a cause of human skin colour variation: Darwin's hypothesis revisited.

Darwin, despite its oldness, was much more smart that any Dawkins of our time could ever be! In the text above it's clear the inexistence of any evolutionary advantage to whiteness, more, there are many advantages for blackness, and that makes all sense accordingly to the Eukaryotic Trinitarian Scheme. However, for a flatness fundamentalist of genes like Dawkins, this is a paradox! How can be? How the fittest genes can be the segregated ones?

As I already told, there is a systematic conflict between Natural and Sexual Selection, the prejudice instinct is a reflect of the Species itself, and that comes from the first eukaryotes on the planet, more than 2.000 millions years ago.

the Good - Loved by Sexual Selection, he is in the Gene Pool from the beginning, he is the oldest one. Now and ever Sexual Selection has been taking care of him, is a relationship of profound love and absolute dedication that nothing can reach up;

the Bad - Supported by Natural Selection, he is the newcomer, an Intruder, he isn't flushed away by Sexual Selection because doesn't represent any real Entropy to be pushed away, and mainly, because Sexual Selection is permeable to Induction carry out by Natural Selection;

the Untermensch - The resulting waste of the Bad, its Entropy is unprompted by the Natural Selection and hated by Sexual Selection. Living in the cold with nothing to save him, is doomed to a path destined to him, a path that leads to persecution and eternal extinction, for ever and ever.

The bad gene here, the intruder, is supported by Natural Selection, however it faces resistance of Sexual Selection, this resistance may vary accordingly to the change it produces or its success in producing a new and distinct species and not just a polymorphism.

With the start of Eukaryotes we have the Origin of Species and their Kernels. The main priority of species is maintain the respective Kernel, however when faced with strong Natural Selection pressure Polymorphisms may arrive despite the effort of Species against them.

So, is there also a kernel for Human species? Well, if you ask which is the Skin Color for that kernel you may answer the White one. Black color come as a Polymorphism, however, to see this, you need to see the full picture, you need to see the evolution of Primates.

Chris Smith: What colour would that ancestor have been? Nina Jablonski: Almost certainly we can be assured that that ancestor would have probably looked a lot more like chimpanzees than us. The ancestor would have had lightly pigmented skin covered with dark hair. When you look at all higher primates including chimpanzees, the rest of the apes and Old World monkeys, all of our closest cousins—this is the pattern that we see, light skin covered by dark hair; and what’s interesting is that all of these animals have the ability to develop a tan on the exposed parts of their skin. For instance, on their faces, and on their hands, so that that ancestor probably would have had the same ability to develop a tan on the exposed areas. Chris Smith: It’s intriguing to think that we were white, went black, and that some of us have gone white again. Why did we lose our hair though? Why didn’t we just keep the hair if that worked well for that ancestor, and stay white? - Evolution of Skin Colours - Professor Nina Jablonski, Penn State University

Species are all about standardization, and the Species Kernel is that Standardization! This is easily viewed in the palms hands of black people, or when they born, because all black people born white.

Because the Species Will overcomes the Organism Will, there is the need of constant repression of the Species Will to be politically correct.

Most white Americans demonstrate bias against blacks, even if they're not aware of or able to control it. It's a surprisingly little-discussed factor in the anguishing debates over race and law enforcement that followed the shootings of unarmed black men by white police officers. Such implicit biases -- which, if they were to influence split-second law enforcement decisions, could have life or death consequences -- are measured by psychological tests, most prominently the computerized Implicit Association Test, which has been taken by over two million people online at the website Project Implicit. - Across America, whites are biased and they don’t even know it

But this isn't just in America or white people, like the following videos that also show the Species Will to whiteness:

Don't recognize de difference between Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes, don't see the paper of Species manipulating its Organisms, reducing everything to Genes, is a Blindness that the Scientific community should be ashamed of.

The reason that made humans turn white again, as soon as Natural Selection loose its force (Regression not Evolution), was Sexual Selection repressing the Blackness that Species hates. And because Species controls the Human Will persons are naturally racists, independently of being White or Black (same kernel). The story that says that the cause of racism is the old colonialism, is the same story that says that Shame on Sex is due to Religion. All these feelings have nothing to due with Society but all with Species.

When an Indian person is questioned why it wants to be fair, normally says it wishes to marry thinking that darkness makes it harder. So, its all about Sexual Selection.

For every place you look, you see Species Standardization, like the Sexy son hypothesis that in a nutshell means the following:

The sexy son hypothesis states that females may initially choose a trait because it improves the survival of their young, but once this preference has become widespread, females must continue to choose the trait, even if it becomes harmful. Those that do not will have sons that are unattractive to most females (since the preference is widespread) and so receive few matings - Ridley, M. 2004. Evolution. 3rd ed. Blackwell Scientific Publishing, Malden, MA. (p. 330)

The new ideology of Selfish Gene that reduces everything to genes, that ignores the fundamental difference between Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes, that nowadays is fundamentalist to the point of recognize only Natural Selection, is the biggest regressions that science has ever have.Without the abstraction of Trinitarian Eukaryotic Scheme there will never be any good explanation for all this "human" actions, because Biology is now like Math was before, without grasping Imaginary Numbers!

Sunday, December 28, 2014

This is a Recap about what this Blog is about. From the multiple posts a try to call attention to the restriction of the pure materialistic view that science has today, mainly in the domain of Biology. The Richard Dawkins book The Selfish Gene is a very good example of that, is a deepening into the material, from Organisms to its Genes, never embracing nothing that isn't materialistic...

The day that this materialistic Flatness view changes to a Trinitarian one, everything will become clear, until then, questions like, why sex is so dominant in Eukaryotes, or, do Species exist, will continue to be a mystery!

So, the points that this Blog is about are the following:

1. Species are a Product of Evolution restricted to Eukaryotes

It's admitted that the origin of Eukaryotes is the biggest milestones in evolution since life exists in the planet. It's also recognized that Sexual Selection appeared shortly after the beginning of Eukaryotic life. This form of Speciation is unique, and so unique that only now we start to give the right answer about the reality of Species. Despite many skepticism that persists, you only need to search for the question "are species real?" to find many scientific articles with the absolutely right answer:

"Claridge and I agree that the entities we call species are real biological units." - Species Are Not Uniquely Real Biological Entities, Brent D. Mishler

But what it means REAL, real means real as an Organism is, it means that despite not being material it exists and exerts power and control in a way that no Organism ever could. Well, with Species Natural Selection acts no more on Organisms, it acts on this new entity we call Species. But what works on Organisms if not Natural Selection? Sexual Selection does, in a way that protects Species from deviation, allowing the existence of extremely complex organisms despite low replication fidelity, and in this sense we have the beginning of a new Scheme, the Trinitarian scheme.

You just need to recognize this to understand and have answers to questions that otherwise you will never do.

2. Species are the Physical and Psychological blueprint of its Organisms

With this new trinitarian scheme, organisms are no more than the Species infrastructure, in its relationship with the environment. So when we talk in Physical and Psychological we are always talking of Eukaryotes, as you may well know, the REALITY of psychology and species isn't applicable to Prokaryotes.

So, organisms actions, that are classified as irrational, are so because the flatness of the materialistic view, that sees only the organism self interest, and so, all rationality is centered in this materialistic organism. If you consider the Species best interests you realize that what at first sound irrational is absolutely rational, simple because Species and Organisms doesn't necessary share the same interests!

3. The Species Will overcomes the Organism Will

It's a little bit redundant this affirmation, because if something defines other something, the second one is the result not the cause. For example, if you consider that Species exist for more than 2.000 million years (Sexual Reproduction) and at the same time, Homo Sapiens Sapiens only exists for 200.000 years is easy to grasp the power ratio of 0,01%, and sure this is an overestimation, because in reality time will not change the power ratio. An infrastructure exists to be used...

4. Only Eukaryotes have Species, Prokaryotes don't

The actual common definition of Species haven't change and never will, because there are no Species outside Sexual Selection. So the definition of Species as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring will remain despite all the efforts to force species into Prokaryotes.

The species concept is a recurrent controversial issue that preoccupies philosophers as well as biologists of all disciplines. Prokaryotic species concept has its own history and results from a series of empirical improvements parallel to the development of the techniques of analysis. Among the microbial taxonomists, there is general agreement that the species concept currently in use is useful, pragmatic and universally applicable within the prokaryotic world. However, this empirically designed concept is not encompassed by any of the, at least, 22 concepts described for eukaryotes. - The species concept for prokaryotes - Ramon Rosselló-Mora and Rudolf Amann

But why is so difficult to find an universal definition for species? The answer, because isn't applicable on Prokaryotes. So, so, simple!

5. Each Species has a kernel where Ring Species is a Fraud
Species are so conservative that consider the existence of Ring Species is not know how strong they are. Ring Species is a Concept that reality has been keen to refute.

Under what circumstances speciation in sexually reproducing animals can occur without geographical disjunction is still controversial. According to the ring–species model, a reproductive barrier may arise through ‘isolation by distance’ when peripheral populations of a species meet after expanding around some uninhabitable barrier. The classical example of this kind of speciation is the herring gull (Larus argentatus) complex, with a circumpolar distribution in the Northern Hemisphere. (...) Contrary to the ring–species model, we find no genetic evidence for a closure of the circumpolar ring through colonization of Europe by North American herring gulls. - The herring gull complex is not a ring species

A while back, when I said in the comments of an evolution post that there were no good “ring species,” a few readers asked me what I meant by that. “What about the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii? Or seagulls in the genus Larus? Aren’t those good ring species?” My answer was that those had been shown not to be ring species in the classic sense, but there was still one species that might be a candidate: the greenish warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides around the Tibetan Plateau.But now that one, too, has been struck off the list of ring species, leaving no good cases. Its removal from the class is documented in a new paper by Miguel Alcaide et al. in Nature (reference and link below), in a group headed by Darren Irwin, a professor at the University of British Columbia and including my next-door Chicago colleague Trevor Price. - There are no ring species

6. Natural and Sexual Selection are in systematic conflict where the Red Queen hypothesis is a fairy tail
Looking at the Trinitarian scheme of Eukaryotes, Natural and Sexual Selection have very different purposes. Natural Selection is the engine of evolution, promoting any mutation that reveals to be an advantage to the fitness of the Species. On the other hand, Sexual Selection purpose is to conserve the Species Kernel at all cost, even from the newcomer gene that supposedly will increase its fitness. In this way, species is forced by Natural Selection to accept the newcomer, never received by open harms.

For over a century, the paradigm has been that sex invariably increases genetic variation, despite many renowned biologists asserting that sex decreases most genetic variation. Sex is usually perceived as the source of additive genetic variance that drives eukaryotic evolution vis-à-vis adaptation and Fisher's fundamental theorem. However, evidence for sex decreasing genetic variation appears in ecology, paleontology, population genetics, and cancer biology. The common thread among many of these disciplines is that sex acts like a coarse filter, weeding out major changes, such as chromosomal rearrangements (that are almost always deleterious), but letting minor variation, such as changes at the nucleotide or gene level (that are often neutral), flow through the sexual sieve. Sex acts as a constraint on genomic and epigenetic variation, thereby limiting adaptive evolution. The diverse reasons for sex reducing genetic variation (especially at the genome level) and slowing down evolution may provide a sufficient benefit to offset the famed costs of sex.- Sex reduces genetic variation: a multidisciplinary review.

Just to finish, this trinity I talk about is not the Holly one, is just about the scheme, nevertheless, trinity is applicable for many other realities, proving its power as a tool for interpretation!

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Today I will give an explanation for the contradiction between Suicide and Self Preservation. It's believed that Self Preservation is the ultimate instinct of any Organism, and when suicidal, there is a Special Math that explains it!

But first, it's important to have in the baggage of thinking a Trinitarian view of reality. Trinity is more than Biology, is a Natural Concept like Evolution, so you will see it in other fields, equally applied to Species as it is to Religion and Ideology.

It's important to notice, that Religion and Ideology are synthesis of the Species Will, were Species is the crude version of itself. With time, Human need for explanations and control of their environment, Species evolved to Religion, and finally, to its ultimate state of sophistication, Ideology. However, all the virtues and vicious they have come from the same source, Species.

So, there is the believe that the ultimate goal of Organisms is Self Preservation, were Organisms are Selfish entities like their genes.

"They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.”
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

This book reveals an ingenious trick, because Organisms are very unpredicted for a Selfish model, he diverts attentions to Genes. The problem is that Genes and Organisms are at the same level, and so aren't the direct subject of Evolution (except in the case of Prokaryotes where there is only Natural Selection). So, if organisms are carriers of Genes, they would also have the ultimate Self Preservation objective. However there is a problem, Suicide. About it Dawkins says the following.

"The minimum requirement for a suicidal altruistic gene to be successful is that it should save more than two siblings (or children or parents), or more than four half-siblings (or uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, grandparents, grandchildren), or more than eight first cousins, etc. Such a gene, on average, tends to live on in the bodies of enough individuals saved by the altruist to compensate for the death of the altruist itself."

It looks like for suicide to happen you need to have relatives and at the same tame be altruistic, because otherwise the math doesn't sum up! However the great majority of suicides have nothing to do with altruism, they are in reality very selfish, and normally are caused by isolation rather than a familiar environment. So, is there any Selfish Suicide that Dawkins wishes to talk about?

Restricting the usefulness of genes or its success to familiar relationships is a restriction that comes hand to hand with the Genes as the Object of Natural Selection. Genes may be favored by Natural Selection, but in Eukaryotes the ultimate object of Selection is the Species not the Gene. And so, no matter the familiar relationships, the gene will be successful as it will be the Species that encapsulates it. As in the Fisher's geometric model Genes are like a knob in the microscope where is the microscope who is adjusted to the environment not the knob! Strange that Dawkins doesn't realize that, despite Dawkins have named Fisher "the greatest biologist since Darwin". So, genes are supported by Natural Selection as its Species is, and by Sexual Selection as their Organisms are! Restricting evolution to Genes, is the same as restrict evolution to tools in a Factory, or an Organization, some tools make organizations more successful, but the success of those tools is measured by the success of its Organization not the contrary! By other words, Genes are encapsulated by Species when concerning Natural Selection.

So, there is no Selfish Gene, there is only Selfish Species, something that goes beyond any familiar relationship, and so, the so called Self Preservation is only applicable to Species. Organisms and their Genes are ultimately committed to other thing, they are committed to Conformity. An organism is prone to commit suicide if that Conformity is no possible and the resultant frustration pushes him to it, or the glory of a better conformity, were the first case is selfish and the second altruist regardless any familiar relationship.

In reality suicide is so Endemic that a news about a study of CDC concludes that:

Looking deeper into the data, though, shows a second astonishing fact that actually is surprising: just how high the gun-suicide rate really is. The preamble to the CDC’s National Vital Statistics Reports Vol. 60, No. 3 cites firearms as one of the “four major mechanisms of injury in 2009” (the year of the survey), along with poisoning, motor vehicles, and falling. In that year, 59.8% of all “firearm injury deaths” were suicides, and 36.7% were homicides. - in Who Knew? The Leading Cause Of Gun Death Is Suicide

So much for Self Preservation! Is this Altruism or just a big family? Organisms have no right to Self Preservation, Species and its derivatives do.

If Self Preservation was the ultimate goal of Organisms, there will be no need for Anti Suicide campaigns, or extremely care to remove from the market drugs that are very lethal, like the Barbiturates, that otherwise would be sold like popcorns thanks to a big demand, the same demand you have with those who have no restrictions to them.

Medical practitioners have a relatively high rate of suicide. Death entry data for doctors who died by suicide or undetermined cause between 1979 and 1995 in England and Wales were used to compare methods used for suicide by doctors with those used by the general population. Methods used were analysed according to gender, occupational status and speciality, to assess the extent to which access to dangerous means influences the pattern of suicide. Self‐poisoning with drugs was more common in the doctors than in general population suicides (57% vs. 26.6%; OR=3.65, 95% CI 2.85–4.68), including in retired doctors. Barbiturates were the most frequent drugs used. Half of the anaesthetists who died used anaesthetic agents. Self‐cutting was also more frequently used as a method of suicide. The finding that the greater proportion of suicide deaths in doctors were by self‐poisoning may reflect the fact that doctors have ready access to drugs, and have knowledge of which drugs and doses are likely to cause death. The specific finding that a large proportion of suicides in anaesthetists involved anaesthetic agents supports this explanation. Availability of method may be a factor contributing to the relatively high suicide rate of doctors. This fact might influence clinical management of doctors who are known to be depressed or suicidal. - in Doctors who kill themselves: a study of the methods used for suicide

So, what is the ultimate Goal for Organisms, Survival or Conformity?

There is a problem, Species don't make Conformity easy, there are all reasons not to conform and almost no reasons to do so, essentially because there is a single Optimum where all the rest is noise. At the same time Organism heritage from Species a cocktail of pseudo benign feelings pushing them to conformity that in case of failure immediately switch to pain.

Suicide when not a Species tool is a lesser evil. The problem of knowing the causes of suicide is the same as knowing the causes of Biologic Diseases, to many causes for a single consequence. So, is not what causes suicide but what avoids it. Like a Conformist Organism, everyone that is different at the eyes of the Species is a potential problem for it, and the causes of that difference may be infinite. In this way Organisms may be stressed to the point of committing suicide, and species being only concern about conformity have no problems with this side effect. Humans in special are very complex and consequently need to be very well tuned Organisms, and so, their lives must also be very well tuned to a kind of Standard Plot.

In great extent, is the divergence of this Plot that causes Suicide, as a Study shows, those who commit suicide already have a suicidal story, proving a divergence start from that Plot to a point of no return.

Also, suicide may be a species tool in the case when it directly serves its interests, and we may have Altruistic situations that surely go behind those that Dawkins talks about. This is true for Species as it is for Religions and Ideologies. Organisms, Believers and Militants are no more than the needed infrastructure for a given standard Protocol. This protocol may demand them to commit suicide, and compliance is what is expected.

From religious martyrs, to feverous fighters its what they believe that sands still, regardless any voluntarism! So, Species, Religions and Ideologies may promote Suicide given the right conditions, with the ultimate goal of their Self Preservation.

One goal to have, is making better Ideologies supported by better technologies, to avoid unnecessary cruelty, recognizing that if conformity is the ultimate human purpose it should be achieved in the most agreeable way possible. Making so, we are creating a Plot which divergence is less likely.

As I have been writing, Species are the result of Natural Selection something like Diploid vs. Haploid Organisms, a result of millions of years of evolution, and that is why before Eukaryotes Species have never existed, because species are also the result of millions of years of evolution.

In this new scheme, Species are the repository of the organism blueprint, physical and psychological, so we may view the Species' Will like the Species' Organism.

Now the old Story, the Story of two Fathers and three Sons, those Fathers are Natural and Sexual Selection, the Sons are the Good, the Bad and the Untermensch! All but one are much loved by each one of their Fathers. They are treated in this manner:

the Good - Loved by Sexual Selection, he is in the Gene Pool from the beginning, he is the oldest one. Now and ever Sexual Selection has been taking care of him, is a relationship of profound love and absolute dedication that nothing can reach up;

the Bad - Supported by Natural Selection, he is the newcomer, an Intruder, he isn't flushed away by Sexual Selection because doesn't represent any real Entropy to be pushed away, and mainly, because Sexual Selection is permeable to Induction carry out by Natural Selection;

the Untermensch - The resulting waste of the Bad, its Entropy is unprompted by the Natural Selection and hated by Sexual Selection. Living in the cold with nothing to save him, is doomed to a path destined to him, a path that leads to persecution and eternal extinction, for ever and ever.

Overdominance is the result of diploidity, a characteristic dominant in Eukaryotes organisms, so a modern trait in evolution, mainly concerning Sexual Selection. So simply explained, overdominance is the introduction of a new gene that has a better fitness than the existing one when paired with it (heterozygous), but is deleterious when paired with itself (homozygous). A good example is the case of Sickle-cell disease, the result of a gene that gives protection against Malaria when alone, but a disease when together. But this is just one example, there are many more examples of overdominance, of recessive genes that are diseases once paired with each together, and so never becoming fixed. The problem is that those examples are only the tip of the iceberg, as weel put in the Fisher's geometric model, in the presence of extreme complexity, evolution has to happen in equally extremely small adjustments, this means that those more fitted genes need to start as a recessive genes, giving room to deleterious homozygous combinations. This reality has been proven in a study titled Heterozygote advantage as a natural consequence of adaptation in diploids, where is stated that:

The larger range of adaptive mutations available to diploids comes with a catch, however; many of these adaptive mutations display heterozygote advantage, and thus will not simply go to fixation.

We argue that adaptation-driven balanced polymorphisms can be an important source of consequential genetic variation. In particular, we believe that the balanced polymorphisms predicted by our model can be associated with human disease. Some of the common disease variants could be mutations that are maintained at high population frequencies because of strong heterozygote advantage, although they are very harmful as homozygotes.

This proves that is the health of the Species that matter, not of its Organisms, a dichotomy that many refuses to view! So, the view of the Good, the Bad and the Untermensch is exclusive to the Species Eyes, organisms have no opinion of their own, because there is only the Species' Will.

This Will permeates all human culture, because is important to maintain the health that really matters, and humans act like actors of a preexisting plot, where conformity to this plot is their only purpose, over the lie of Self Preservation that in reality is only applied to Species. As another study guesses very well:

Vasily Klucharev was able to see the physiology of the Species Will, but the real question is always missing, If the Species Health is all it matters, why it would support organisms Free Will? Mainly when this Free Will could be contradictory to the Species Will!

In this will, the only that really exists, the Untermensch needs to be pursued, and you don't need to look further to see this persecution. Albinos, a result of overdominance, are being so, like the next article shows very well.

This kind of persecution is heavily associated with superstition, the root of any religion, and that is why that despite all efforts of science to end superstition, it prevails, because this superstition is no more than the excuse that species give to organisms act the way they are supposed to. If you think that this is an isolated case you are wrong. Superstition relates to all situations of difference or non conformity with the standard. Witchcraft accusations against children is just one way of persecution, another is traditional Folklore, like Trolls or the Changeling, where the theme of the swapped child is common among medieval literature and reflects concern over infants thought to be afflicted with unexplained diseases, disorders, or developmental disabilities.

This folklore is transported to our days, in movies or pop icons, like one Troll of Rage Comic characters, were the Forever Alone, not surprisingly, is the most popular.

This and the successful Lord of the Rings are cultural examples of the Species Will against the Untermensch, where individuals are right in clamming innocence due to the fact of having no will in this matter (or any other).

Like Shame in Sex, that I talked about in a post before, the Untermensch is also wrongly associated to ideologies in particularly with Nazism, not realizing that Nazism doesn't borrow only its symbols from ancient folklore, like the Swastika or the SS symbol, it also borrow all the feelings already existing then and that continue to exist now, feelings that you may well guess having one single source.

These feelings that exist to be interpreted and followed by humans, are the ones that glorify all individuals with high levels of conformity, being under the Species Wing gives you a special aura.

Unfortunately Species are very picky and ruthless against non conformity, it has successfully been managing its "guardians" against it. So, in the so called civilized world, and despite being very civilized, the species guardians do their work as they do in Africa. And is not difficult to have news of some of them, now named Bullies. Yes in bullying may be some friendly fire, but we shouldn't delude ourselves, bulling has a very well defined purpose that is not just about young fellows as Workplace Bullying shows in a recent study, the victims are well profiled:

Over the years, much attention has been devoted to understanding counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and its related concepts. Less is known, however, about whether certain employees find themselves more than others to be the targets of CWB. To examine this issue, we tested a model that positioned CWB receipt as a function of employees' personality (neuroticism, agreeableness), their appearance (physical attractiveness), and the negative emotions felt toward those employees by their coworkers. Two studies using multiple sources of data revealed that disagreeable and physically unattractive employees received more CWB from their coworkers, coworker negative emotion felt toward employees was associated with CWB receipt, and the relationship between employee agreeableness and CWB receipt was due, in part, to coworker negative emotion. - Beauty, Personality, and Affect as Antecedents of Counterproductive Work Behavior Receipt

To be clear and rest no doubts:

In addition to personality, we examined physical attractiveness, positing that attractive employees would be less likely to elicit negative emotion in their coworkers and receive CWB than unattractive employees. Theories of social acceptance stipulate that characteristics valued by society include both communal qualities such as kindness and warmth (i.e., agreeableness) and superficial qualities such as beauty (Anthony, Holmes, & Wood, 20007). Indeed, research on bullying among school-age children has revealed that victims of bullying are more likely to perceived as physically unattractive by their peers (e.g., Sweeting & West, 2001; see also Olweus, 1978). Thus, by including personality (neuroticism and agreeableness) and appearance (physical attractiveness), our model acknowledges that in predicting the receipt of CWB, it likely is “what's on the inside” and “what's on the outside” that counts. - Beauty, Personality, and Affect as Antecedents of Counterproductive Work Behavior Receipt

So, while things continue to be seen as flat, while we ignore the trinity of the Eukaryotic model, we will continue to make the same mistakes, and search for causes in the wrong place.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

DNA Genome is much bigger in Eukaryotes (Sexual) than Prokaryotes (Asexual), but wait, it's because Sexual Reproduction but not Sexual Selection, is due to their difference however they are equal, Species exist but they aren't Real, DNA explains everything but it's Junk... Confuse? It's meant to be!

Friday, August 22, 2014

Human monozygotic twins and other genetically identical organisms are
almost always strikingly similar in appearance, yet they are often
discordant for important phenotypes including complex diseases. Such
variation among organisms with virtually identical chromosomal DNA
sequences has largely been attributed to the effects of environment.
Environmental factors can have a strong effect on some phenotypes, but
evidence from both animal and human experiments suggests that the impact
of environment has been overstated and that our views on the causes of
phenotypic differences in genetically identical organisms require
revision. New theoretical and experimental opportunities arise if
epigenetic factors are considered as part of the molecular control of
phenotype. Epigenetic mechanisms may explain paradoxical findings in
twin and inbred animal studies when phenotypic differences occur in the
absence of observable environmental differences and also when
environmental differences do not significantly increase the degree of
phenotypic variation. - In Phenotypic differences in genetically identical organisms: the epigenetic perspective.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Shame is a feeling that has an important role in sex. Its restricting effect is many times seen as a product of humanity, not a natural thing, contrary to Sex. We see Shame being associated to Religion, Social Morals, Ideologies and Conservatism, what we never see, is Shame being associated to Sex! So, we will show that Shame on Sex it's much older than a few centuries, it has many millions years of existence in this world of Species.

As I already shown in many of my posts, Eukaryote form of life (Three Layers), in which we belong, is different from Prokaryote one (Two Layers). Also, the true place of Species are essential to understand the role of Sexuality.

So, Sexual Selection (SS) that connects Organisms with Species, only existent in Eukaryotes, has in it two important feelings, Attraction and Shame. Attraction is a positive feeling, and Shame a negative one. In this dichotomy, attraction between organisms behave like planets formation, trough a process called Accretion!

We may use the planets formation analogy in the following way:

In this analogy we have Big (B) and Small (s) planets, where by the Newton's law of universal gravitation, the bigger the planets bigger is the attraction between them! So, if instead Big Planets we think in attractive organisms, we understand the logic how Sexual Selection allows the promotion of better organism in the Gene Pool. However, contrary to Planets, for Species size isn't all! For Species quality matters, because it's what defines it... In this way, Small planets shouldn't be attracted, but instead repulsed, in this way a negative feeling must be introduced. However, this feeling should be implemented in a way that doesn't interrupt the Attraction that matters to Species.

So, here we explain how each interaction must work for those two feelings:

Attraction:

Big to Big (B-B): Strong attraction due to two big Objects (Two Ways);

Big to Small (B-S): Medium attraction due to only one big Object (One Way);

Small to Small (S-S): Small or none attraction due to very low mass involved (No Way).

Shame:

Medium repulsion between any Object due to Embarrassment.

Between this two feelings there is an Equilibrium, that equilibrium works on Shame trough Natural Selection (Evolution) in a way that only Organisms with too much Entropy are wasted. One thing that is important to acknowledge is that in essence all organisms are in some degree handicapped, and the level of deficiency is strongly correlated to attractiveness, or beauty in a negative way. This is easily viewed, for instead in optics where little marge exists for error, and in some countries of Asia you have up to 80% of people with Myopia! Susan Boyle, in the Picture, suffers from Asperger syndrome proving that the prettiest is the cleanest in terms of biological Entropy. Entropy is so present, that many persons considered perfect, turn out not to be, like the well known Ricky Martin or Wentworth Miller, showing us that nothing is safe from Entropy, including sexual orientation (Not surprisingly, Species' Shame is particularly acute in this cases)! You can see more in my older posts how Consanguinity and other issues are interconnected to Sex!

However, because Shame is always present, despite Sexual dimorphism, it requires that even in the cases of Strong Attraction things had to be done in the dark to avoid Embarrassment, also with the extra advantage to species that no feeling of injustice becomes too vivid at the point that excluded Organisms don't play as expected... For Species, making Sex its own business trough Shame enforces that Organism are more operational, being worried only with terrain matters, like food and shelter, something that by itself is a good reason for Species to adopt Shame in its reproduction Scheme!

Attraction and Shame are not exclusive to Humans, despite some illuminated people that glorifies the notion that "only Humans feel", Attraction and Shame are felt in any other Animal and they worked exactly the same way with exactly the same purpose, serve its Species.

We Humans have one advantage relatively to other animals, we can solve problems inherited from nature, and instead of bury our head in the sand, saying everything is natural, everything is cool, we may admit that a more controlled process of human reproduction is needed, acknowledge for instance that biological differences are in essence an unjust form of exclusion and not something everyone has to live with just because is something "natural" or "romantic"... More than marketing and cheap propaganda, we need to address the truth and take in our hands the reproduction mechanism, where In Vitro Fertility is a possible solution, with a increasing more efficient mechanism of diagnostic when it comes to Birth Defects! We must give to the Species what it wants and in this way put it aside from our way!

More can be done, but nothing will be if we let romantics and their ethics dominate our life with their meaningless words that are nothing more than lies serving only the Species. So, no, it's not Islam or Christianity that represses Sex and promotes Shame, is not even Communism or Fascism, is Sex itself in its Protocol implemented by their Species, where words like "Pretty" and "Ugly" are part of it!

But for a broader view of Shame in the Species Protocol, we may define it like:

Shame exists to ensure the conformity to the implemented If and Only If Mating Ritual (Species Protocol), while repressing everything else!

Again, Mating Rituals have nothing of romantic, they exist to serve the Species healthy, were those organisms that for some reason aren't able to play the If and Only If game are kept away due to no disrespect allowed... Disrespect to the Species Protocol of course!

In some way moralism is an extension of this Protocol, where its purpose is to say this is the right way, everything else is a Shame, it's immoral! And the main source of moral is no more than the actions that least shock the population, their feelings, that in reality aren't their feelings, because being ubiquitous they prove to become from only one place, Species! So this is why Shame on Sex is always present in any moral philosophy, no matter if Religious or Political, because Species aren't possible to be corrupted!